FRACTAL Version 1

[Army of GOD]

Ok, this is my first attempt at a map, so if it sucks, I blame someone else.

Click image to enlarge.

The idea of it is obviously a Sierpinski Triangle because everybody on this website is a nerd and will enjoy a little fractal (I'm no exception). Looking at it now, I was planning on having about 3 territories in every SMALL TRIANGLE, 12 in every MEDIUM TRIANGLE and 48 in the LARGE TRIANGLE.

For bonuses, I figured that 1 (or 2, wasn't exactly sure) would be the bonus for holding a SMALL TRIANGLE, 4 (or 8 ) for the MEDIUM TRIANGLES (this map being mathematically equivalent all-over, I thought that it would just be equal to to 4 smalls), and 16 (or 32) for the LARGE TRIANGLE (it seemed ridiculously large to me too, but it fits the logic).

And territories can only attack bordering ones, which I could indicate with a line or something.

And I know that this map looks half-assed and everything, but I wanted to just do a basic outline and then have the dogs tear it apart. Then at least I'd know how to make it better. I'm up for plenty of suggestions and have A LOT of friggin' time on my hands, so I'm good for anything.


Thank you and have a good day.

[natty dread]

I'll have to tell you up front, don't get your hopes up. The community or the foundry don't seem to like anything having to do with science, unless it's history or geography, when it comes to maps... it seems all maps having to do with other areas of science have failed. For example I spent quite some time working on my Protein map, which had a theme, some support and well developed graphics, and it still failed, as the foundry staff deemed it not having a big enough target group.

I'm not saying not to go ahead with this, it could become a great map eventually. But just to warn you, you're up for the fight of your life to get this anywhere beyond the drafting room.

As for your map, the major problem as I see it right now is the lack of impassables, which brings a similar open field as in chinese checkers, but in a larger scale still... Too hard to defend bonuses!

[AndyDufresne]

I'll have to tell you up front, don't get your hopes up. The community or the foundry don't seem to like anything having to do with science, unless it's history or geography, when it comes to maps... it seems all maps having to do with other areas of science have failed. For example I spent quite some time working on my Protein map, which had a theme, some support and well developed graphics, and it still failed, as the foundry staff deemed it not having a big enough target group

It's not that the Foundry "hates science and loves geography" --- but rather, to make people want to play on something more abstract, or less concrete...away from traditional World Domination, usually must be pretty spectacular in some sense--- either by unique and well crafted graphics or unique game play.

You have to convince people this is a good idea, either through stellar graphics or unique game play.

Best of luck!


--Andy

[porkenbeans]

Well to be more precise, You must convince the Foundry, and the small group of people that populate it. NOT the people of CC as a whole, as their views are not represented here. The simple fact is, only a very small percentage of CC members, ever even visit the forums. And, the majority of them have NEVER visited any forum.

[captainwalrus]

I'll have to tell you up front, don't get your hopes up. The community or the foundry don't seem to like anything having to do with science, unless it's history or geography, when it comes to maps... it seems all maps having to do with other areas of science have failed.

It isn't the fact that is is related to science. There is no one saying that science maps are bad, they have to have more of a point then just, here is a _______, you can take it over! That isn't that great of a theme, in most people's opinion.

[TaCktiX]

The Sierpenski Triangle, while a famous fractal, I don't think is the best idea for a mathematical entry into CC. For one, the gameplay would break down to really dang similar to some other geographical map out there. For two, the graphics can only go so far.

But the idea of using a fractal I think is a winner, as you have TONS of fractals out there to choose from. What if you did some creative mapping of the Mandelbrot Set (just find a color-coded version, there are tons on Google), simplifying the colors into bonus regions (or even better, a scattered build-a-bonus map; there aren't that many geographical maps that use build-a-bonus).

Or perhaps something simpler like a Moebius strip, though the inherent three-dimensional nature might make that a graphical editing nightmare.

The overall moral is go for different gameplay, and wrap some cool mathematical or scientific concept behind it. If it can be broken down into a scientific re-imagining of Classic or Europe or something like that, it won't make it past the meat grinder, sadly.

[porkenbeans]

I'll have to tell you up front, don't get your hopes up. The community or the foundry don't seem to like anything having to do with science, unless it's history or geography, when it comes to maps... it seems all maps having to do with other areas of science have failed.

It isn't the fact that is is related to science. There is no one saying that science maps are bad, they have to have more of a point then just, here is a _______, you can take it over! That isn't that great of a theme, in most people's opinion.

How do you know when most of the people are not asked the question ?

[captainwalrus]

I'll have to tell you up front, don't get your hopes up. The community or the foundry don't seem to like anything having to do with science, unless it's history or geography, when it comes to maps... it seems all maps having to do with other areas of science have failed.

It isn't the fact that is is related to science. There is no one saying that science maps are bad, they have to have more of a point then just, here is a _______, you can take it over! That isn't that great of a theme, in most people's opinion.

How do you know when most of the people are not asked the question ?

By most people I mean most of the people who take the time and effort to comment in order to make sure the foundry produces good maps for all the people who don't put in the effort to come and post in the foundry.
If people don't want to go into the foundry, that is their loss.

[wcaclimbing]

There is a pretty long-held belief in the foundry that maps that:

A. are simple symmetrical patterns.
B. have little to no theme.
C. are just of the 'here is a cool shape, go conquer it' variety.

generally don't do well.

If a map is symmetrical, or at least has many similar regions, the map will get boring rather quickly, because each game will play out in generally the same way.
If there isn't a cool theme, you are just left with the same repetitive gameplay over and over again.

As TaCktiX said, there are plenty of other kinds of fractals out there, and those could make things much more interesting. Just having lots of triangles will get boring really quickly.

Pork, I hope that answers your question.

[porkenbeans]

There is a pretty long-held belief in the foundry that maps that:

A. are simple symmetrical patterns.
B. have little to no theme.
C. are just of the 'here is a cool shape, go conquer it' variety.

generally don't do well.

If a map is symmetrical, or at least has many similar regions, the map will get boring rather quickly, because each game will play out in generally the same way.
If there isn't a cool theme, you are just left with the same repetitive gameplay over and over again.

As TaCktiX said, there are plenty of other kinds of fractals out there, and those could make things much more interesting. Just having lots of triangles will get boring really quickly.

Pork, I hope that answers your question.

Yes, I realize that experienced map makers DO know a thing or two about what makes a good map, but, my point is, It is ultimately up to the wider audience, that is the players. they will decide if a map is to see much play or not. This group is the one with the wider range of tastes, when it comes to art, complexity, style of play, and all the other things that maps are judged upon. The experienced map makers can only use their "educated" guess as to whether a map will do well or not. If this were not so, then Coca Cola would never have came out with that flop a few years back. You see these "experienced" professionals were up against Pepsi's taste challenge blitz campaign. Their TV commercials showed that in a blind test, the people preferred Pepsi over Coke. Pepsi has a tad more sugar than Coke, so those geniuses thought that if they changed their formula to be more like Pepsi, they could change the results of the Pepsi challenge, and recapture their share of the market. Well, everybody knows what happened. It seems that a whole lot of people like their cola with less sugar. They may not be the majority of cola drinkers, but they sure were the majority of Coke drinkers. They quickly brought back the "Original" Coke, and the rest is history.

[MrBenn]

Yes, I realize that experienced map makers DO know a thing or two about what makes a good map, but, my point is, It is ultimately up to the wider audience, that is the players. they will decide if a map is to see much play or not.

The overwhelming popularity of Chinese Checkers is a perfect example of players voting with their feet

As for Sierpinski's triangle, I agree that it is an elegant mathematical structure - and I could witter on about fractal dimensions until the Gasket comes home - but I'm not convinced it's the best subject matter for a CC map; despite the fact that you can use it to highlight all the odd numbers in Pascal's Triangle, and that it is one of many algorithms of recursion... You're going to get me reciting my dissertation soon; this is not necessarily a good thing!

[MrBenn]

For now, I'll move this thread into the Ideas room, until you have got some more meat to the bones of the idea

[Army of GOD]

Ok then. See, this is why I didn't put so much into before people could have a bite of it. Maybe I should just wait until more people throw their ideas on the table? I'm not superb at the map-making process, though it is interesting.

[AndyDufresne]

No problem in testing the waters. If you can still achieve stellar graphics or unique game play, a map can make it. For instance, Widowmaker's King of the Mountain map is an example of early non-geographic Foundry map that introduced some new game play elements (more one way assaults, tapered continents, etc) with a visual style that was fresh for the time.

I'd also contend, that before Circus Maximus was REVAMPed by Widowmakers, it similarly introduced new game play that primarily propped it up (its original graphics weren't that stellar).

So it definitely can be done. But always consider what you want to spend your time on as a cartographer---what not only would be the most fun for the community, for yourself to create as well.

Best of luck,


--Andy

[porkenbeans]

Yes, I realize that experienced map makers DO know a thing or two about what makes a good map, but, my point is, It is ultimately up to the wider audience, that is the players. they will decide if a map is to see much play or not.

The overwhelming popularity of Chinese Checkers is a perfect example of players voting with their feet

As for Sierpinski's triangle, I agree that it is an elegant mathematical structure - and I could witter on about fractal dimensions until the Gasket comes home - but I'm not convinced it's the best subject matter for a CC map; despite the fact that you can use it to highlight all the odd numbers in Pascal's Triangle, and that it is one of many algorithms of recursion... You're going to get me reciting my dissertation soon; this is not necessarily a good thing!

And it was just starting to get interesting.

[squishyg]

math is awesome. cool idea.

[Victor Sullivan]

math is awesome. cool idea.

Lol, indeed it is. But does it make a good map...?

-Sully

[natty dread]

Squishyg, necrobumping is against the rules!!!

Anyway, everything that can be said about this subject has been pretty much said on page 1. The ball is now in the court of any brave little mapmaker who thinks he can tackle a subject like "fractals" into an interesting CC map.

[kengyin]

i generally like maps which are based on real life wars the most, there can never be too many world war 2 maps. as for this map, i agree with natty in that people don't generally like maths or science maps, even though i love them in real life, i don't really like conquering triangles, i prefer liberating the UK from the blue forces

[army of nobunaga]

I'll have to tell you up front, don't get your hopes up. The community or the foundry don't seem to like anything having to do with science, unless it's history or geography, when it comes to maps... it seems all maps having to do with other areas of science have failed. For example I spent quite some time working on my Protein map, which had a theme, some support and well developed graphics, and it still failed, as the foundry staff deemed it not having a big enough target group

It's not that the Foundry "hates science and loves geography" --- but rather, to make people want to play on something more abstract, or less concrete...away from traditional World Domination, usually must be pretty spectacular in some sense--- either by unique and well crafted graphics or unique game play.

You have to convince people this is a good idea, either through stellar graphics or unique game play.

Best of luck!


--Andy

wrong... about 7% of all CCers read this forum....

they would play this map if it looked and played well.


you map people and mods use the words " to make people" ... lol what people... the scant few that read this? AoG.. make some graphics... go through the hoops. It will go through.


its more of every science map was given up on.

[Army of GOD]

let's make this

[dakky21]

I find it really new and interesting, but it would be a nightmare to code XML, because of all the possibilities. And I would add the missing triangles so it looks like this



Note that I shown SOME bonus regions, but of course every combination of a triangle of it's size should be possible, but I don't know would it work gameplay wise...

[Army of GOD]

well that's why I didn't include the smaller triangles. It looks way too much like hive and the bonuses can become a mess

[Captn B]

What about, to make the bonus areas more easily defined and understood, you reduce the size of the main triangle to an internal number of 4 or 5 terts per side (4x4x4 or 5x5x5)? Then, off of each side (if symmetry is really needful) have a smaller triangle come off of, let's say the top right and is 3x3x3. Shade it like it's bending up or back to create some sense of depth. Then off of the right side of that one more triangle that is 2x2x2. Do this on all three sides so now you will have 3 small bonuses that consist of 4 terts and 3 more that each have 9. Each "ear" or "wing" coming off the side could be perceived like those kids toys that you blow on and it makes the wings on the stick spin.

As suggested above, you could have the main triangle of 16 or 25 territories divided into bonuses by color.

Include blank triangles inside the main one to make impassables.

I would put together a picture, since I'm sure I didn't explain it very well, but I don't know how to put the image into my post.

How about this (disregard the periods and try to visualize the lines--the periods are only there as placeholders):
...._____
.../_\.../\
.......\ /..\___/_\
......./..#..\..../
....../______\ /
.......\.../
........\ /_\

Kinda something like that, with the # sign being one of several impassables. If the middle one is 5x5x5, then have one of the inner bonuses another 3x3x3 and two more 2x2x2s with dead cells (impassables) located strategically to enhance game play.

Or it could be something like this:

......... /\
.. /_\__/ .\___/_\
.. \... /. # .\..../
... \ /______\ /
....... \. . /
...... /_\ /_\

or
... ____________
.. /_\... /\..... /_\
...... \. /. \.. /
....... /. #. \
... .. /______\
.. ...... \.. /
......../_\/_\

There are so many ways to have different things coming off the sides. Perhaps on the 4 tert bonuses, put a dead cell in the middle, so it's only a 3 tert bonus, and worth less than a 4 cell.

I know its a stretch from your original idea, but design is manipulation until something materializes that works. GL